Research Report PSI

1
Papercrete
Engineering Research Report
2005 The Center for Alternative Building Studies
To the greatest degree possible, all reasonable and proper mixing, sampling and testing
procedures were followed to produce the data in this report. Since papercrete is a new
material, there are no written mixing and sampling standards so in some cases it was
necessary to follow common sense methods rather than prescribed procedures. Any
anomalies involving sample preparation are described under Section I. Observations. The
tests described in Section II were performed under the supervision of Dr. Apostolos
Fafitis, with the Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State University, in the
engineering laboratory. While everything possible was done to produce valid results, the
data in this report should be considered a guide to the basic properties of papercrete
rather than numeric absolutes. One reason for this is the issue of homogeneity of
materials. Even though we used newsprint to make our samples in order to introduce as
few variables as possible, we cannot state with absolute certainty that newsprint is the
same throughout the country. It is difficult to maintain homogeneity from mix to mix never mind across the entire country or world. Stringent homogeneity may not even be an
issue, but until more testing is done, it has to at least be taken into account. In the interest
of absolute transparency, there are a few compressive test results, which seem anomalous
to us. If you study the tables carefully, you will find some results, which do not seem to
track well with others. Maybe the test results are flawed or perhaps there was a problem
with the mix. We can't explain some of these results and it will take repeated tests of
samples from a single mix to find out if the test was wrong or the mix varied. Formulas
and methods evolve and change as we learn more, and any material can be dangerous if
mixed or installed improperly. Therefore, we must begin with this disclaimer.
Disclaimer Of Liability And Warranty
Neither the owners of the Center for Alternative Building Studies nor its advisors,
contributors or consultants are liable for incidental, special, consequential, or indirect
damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, business
opportunity, or other economic loss arising out of the use of the information provided in
this report. It is the reader's and customer's responsibility to ensure the accuracy,
compliance with applicable code, statute or regulation, and fitness of purpose of any
application of the information provided in this report.
Section I. Preparation of Mixes For Compressive Strength Tests &

Observations Before Testing
150 gallons of paper pulp was prepared comprised of 94 lbs of paper and enough water to
make 150 gallons of mix. The additional components listed below were blended with the
paper pulp in a mortar mixer and placed in two forms of one cubic foot each. While wet,
a divider was placed in each form, dividing them into halves, providing a total of four
samples of each mix. Tests 1-29 were poured on November 30, 2004. Most measures
were accurate to .2 oz (two tenths of an ounce), but some measurements were difficult.
The crushed glass, which was obtained at a recycling facility, was slightly wet. However,
when a measured volume was dried, it occupied the same space as the slightly wet
sample - so volume measurement was used rather than weight. The Styrofoam material
was so light that it could easily be changed in density by light compression.
Representative samples were taken from the top of the bag being careful to avoid
compression. The paper mill sludge came mixed with various sized wood chips and rocks.
Any chips or rocks over an inch in size were removed by hand before weighing and
mixing. The measurements were accurate, but volume and weight measurements were
used based on ease of handling of the materials. Gallons of dry materials were weighed to
provide some description of the density of the material. The clay we used came from
sandy soil sifted through a number 4 - 1/4 inch screen. A shake test and "worm" test
indicated it to be about 35% clay. We retained small amounts of all materials except the
paper mill sludge for reference *
Since there is not enough horizontal space on the page to fully explain each mix right
next to the test results, the components of each sample mix are listed below and the test
results are listed in Section II. Observations and explanations of any sampling difficulties
or alterations are listed after the table below.
Test
Constituents
Other
Paper/Portland
Paper/Portland
Paper/Portland
1-1
1-2
1-3
Proportions
lb/in2
9.4 lb Portland
18.8 lb Portland
28.2 lb Portland
Measures
1.
2.
3.
.
4.
5.
6.
4k 265g
8k 530g
12k 790g
Paper/Portland/Sand
Paper/Portland/Sand
Paper/Portland/Sand
1-1-5gal
1-1-10gal
1-1-15gal
9.4 lb Portland, .5 gal sand

9.4 lb Portland, 1 gal sand
9.4 lb Portland 1.5 gal sand
4k 265g, 7lb 9.7oz , 3k 450g

4k 265g,13lb 12.3oz, 6k 245g
4k 265g,
7.
8.
9.
Paper/Portland/Fly Ash
1-.7-.25
1-.6-.30
1-.5-.35
7 lb Portland, 2.4 lb Fly Ash

6.6 lb Portland, 2.8 lb Fly Ash
3k 175g, 1k 90g
2k 995g, 1k 270g
2k 770g, 1k 495g
10.
11.
12.
Paper/Port./Rice Hull Ash

1-.7-.3
1-.6-.4
1-.5-.5
6.6 lb Portland, 2.8 lb Rice Ash

2k 995g, 1k 270g
2k 545g, 1k 725g
2k 135g, 2k 135g
13.
14.
15.
Paper/Portland/Styrofoam
15% Sty
20% Sty
25% Sty
12.75glpulp,21.6lbPort,2.25glSty.
12.75glpulp, 21.6lbPort,3 gal Sty
12.75gal pul,21.6lbPort,3.75g Sty
(Using 2.3bags as base Port./yd.)
9k 800g, 5.7oz, 140g

9k 800g, 7.1oz, 200g
9k 800g, 9.3oz, 260g
16.
17.
18.
Sludge/Port./Fly *
Sludge/Port./Fly
Sludge/Port./Fly
1-.7-.25
1-.6-.30
1-.5-.35
7 lb Portland, 2.4 lb Fly Ash

3k 175g, 1k 90g
2k 995g, 1k 270g
2k 770g, 1k 495g
19.
20.
21.
Paper/Portland/Glass
1-1-5gal
1-1-10gal
1-1-15gal
9.4 lb Portland, .5 gal Glass

9.4 lb Portland, 1 gal Glass
9.4 lb Portland 1.5 gal Glass
4k 265g, (crushed glass-damp4k 265g, no accurate weight)

4k 265g,
22.
23.
24.
Paper/Clay**
70/30
Paper/Portland/Clay
Paper/Portland/Clay
0%Port
1 bag mix
2 bag mix
10.5g pulp, 4.5 gal clay

10.5g pulp, 9.4lbsPort, 4.5g clay
10.5g pulp, 18.8gPort, 4.5g clay
0 Port.
, 57lb, 1.9oz
4k 265g 57lb, 1.9oz, 57lb, 1.9oz
8k 530g 57lb, 1.9oz, 57lb, 1.9oz
25.
26.
27.
Paper/Portland/Lime
Paper/Portland/Lime
Paper/Portland/Lime
1-.5-.5
1-1-1
1-1.5-1.5
4.7lb Portland, 4.7 lb Lime

2k 135g
4k 265g
6k 409g
1 gal Sand 13lb 12.3oz

3k 450g
Type"F"
15-25%
Reco.
14.1 lbs
To allow
For wet wood.
Start 10 water
14lb 1.6oz
6k 400g
Clay12lbs 11.7oz/gal
5k, 770g
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Newspaper pulp alone***

Mixed paper pulp
alone***
15 gallons of newspaper pulp

15 gallons of mixed paper pulp
Poured 2/23/05
Hammermilled tests. ****
1/8 inch grind
3/16 inch grind
1/4 inch grind
3/8 inch grind
1/2 inch grind
5/8 inch grind
All 1:2 Paper: Portland -10 cups

of water
"
"
"
"
"
"
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
36.
Clyde T. Curry
Poured 2/13/05
Per yard
37.
Per yard
40
41
42.
Zach Rabon
Poured on 2/5/05
Paper/Port/Fly ash/Sand
Paper above 10 percent
cardboard
SRP Printing paper
Mixed waste paper
60.
Cardboard Pour 3/17/05
1
2
3
4
5
REBAR TESTS
Single block
Single block - same as 1
Double block - straight
Double block - angle
Double block - grouted
38.
39
.1 lb =
.2 lb =
.3 lb =
.4 lb =
.5 lb =
.6 lb =
200 gal
200 ga
105 lbs of hammer milled

cardboard fiber exclusively 185 lbs
of portland cement Type I & II (2
Sacks ) 180 lbs of fine plaster sand
(2 Sacks) 12 cubic feet of
styrofoam reground beads (25 % of
mix) 1/2 lb. of TSP-PF dry powder
detergent 180-200 gallons of PH
neutral hard water (mineral laden)
Mix pending.
.7
1/2 batch
,7
100lbs/94lbs/30lbs/5gallons sand
90 lbs newsprint 10 lbs cardboard
94 lbs Port/30 lbs fly ash/5 gal
sand
100lbs/94lbs/30lbs/5gallons sand
50lbs/47lbs/15lbsfly/2.5 gal sand
100lbs/94lbs/30lbs/2.5gallons sand
.7 yard
1 bag Portland, 30 lbs fly ash
Poured 4/6
Poured 4/6
Poured 4/19
Poured 4/19 - Lex's micer
Poured 4/19/05
1.6 oz
3.2 oz
4.8 oz
6.4 oz
8.0 oz
9.6 oz
.7 lb = 11.2oz
.8 lb = 12.8 oz
Observations Before Testing

Tests 13-15 The Styrofoam tests seemed to settle and shrink slightly less than the other
samples and to cure faster.
* Tests 16-18 - The paper mill sludge tests varied significantly from what was originally
planned. Much more sludge was needed than was available and much less water was
required in the mix. As soon as mixing began, it was evident that 10 gallons of water
would be far too much. We stopped adding water after the initial five-gallon bucket was
added. Even this amount of water made the mix far too soupy so we added a total of 3.5
batches (14.1 lbs. each) of the sludge. The mix was then very similar to conventional
concrete and worked well. However, after using that much sludge we didn't have enough
left to mix the two additional tests described above - so we combined tests 17 and 18.
We combined the Portland cement and fly ash, and added the rest of the sludge, which
comprised of two batches each (14.1 lbs.) plus the leftover sludge -13 lbs. 11 oz. Having
learned from the initial mix that comparatively little water was needed, we added it in one
gallon increments until the mix was workable. This required 4 gallons.
** Tests 22-24 The clay tests were accurately measured and followed our mixing
procedure. However, it was quite evident within a few hours of setting that this clay
could have been mixed with a far greater proportion of papercrete slurry. Sample 22,
made without binder, was not ready to tip on edge when almost all other samples were
(see below). The clay samples were at first very dense and closer to classic adobe than
papercrete. Note: As of December 1st, the clay samples began to dry rapidly and lose
water weight.. They now appear to be clay and paper rather than classic adobe.
*** Tests 28-29 The samples made with newspaper and mixed paper alone (without
binders) took much longer to set. All samples were poured on Saturday, October 30,
2004. All samples, except 22 and 28-29, were tipped on edge on Tuesday, November 2,
2004. Those, which could not be tipped on edge had no binder with the exception of 22,
which had clay. Sample 22 was carefully tipped on edge one day later than the other
samples. It was observably weaker than the others.
**** Tests 30-35 -- The hammer mill tests were intended to compare the strength of
various grinds of hammer milled waste paper blocks to blocks made with newsprint. To
conserve on testing resources, we will test only Samples 30 (1/8"), 33 (5/16") and 35
(5/8"). While this observation may have little scientific value, Sample 33 exhibited the
least deformation (shrinkage). All Samples were made the same way.. About nine
ounces of paper was combined with double the amount of Portland cement and 10 cups
of water. All were mixed for close to three minutes in a five-gallon can with a mortarmixing blade in an electric drill. The mix was then placed in a 3 3/4" inch wooden form.
Since the weather was so damp, the form was taken inside to dry. On the second day, the
Samples were removed from the form. On the third day, small fans were set up to hasten
the drying process. The samples were allowed two weeks to dry. The strength of these
Samples will be compared to each other and to the results of Test 2, which was newsprint
mixed 1:2 with Portland cement.
Tests 30-35 measured the strength of different grinds of hammer milled paper in order to
determine if gauge of grind had any effect on strength. To conserve on testing resources,
it was decided to submit samples 30, 32 and 35. If any unexpected results should occur,
the other samples could be tested.
Sample 36 was a block from Clyde T. Curry, who is experimenting with fast curing
chemicals and needed to know if they were having any effect on strength.
Sample 37 was a block from Zach Rabon in Mason, Texas - new formula.
Sample 40 - Printing trimmings. About twenty percent shrinkage. Tip on edge time
about four days rather than next day with newsprint. Tried a forty percent mix with
newsprint which worked much better, but a 50-50 or 1:1 mix with newsprint would
probably work best.
Sample 41 - Mixed waste paper. Since a percentage of this mix was already newsprint,
the shrinkage and tip time were not as extreme as the print trimmings in Sample 40, but a
larger percentage of newsprint should be used. The shrinkage was more than newsprint
and it took somewhat longer to dry enough to tip up.
WEATHER (Tests 1-29)
The weather during the pouring and drying period was unusually wet for Arizona. The
ground where the samples were poured was still damp from a prior rain, and there were
two light rains and 10-12 days of overcast weather in the three weeks following the pour.
Daily observations of the samples indicated that those mixed with Portland cement dried
faster and shrank less than those without, however all samples took considerably longer
to dry than (reported) in the summer months. The two samples made without binder, the
newspaper and mixed paper, could not be turned on edge until the third week of
November.
On the 18th of November it was observed that the clay samples were changing color to a
light beige. They were also losing weight. Of all the samples, the clay and the paper mill
sludge samples shrank and slumped the least. They also were the densest and heaviest
leading to the assumption that their thermal properties would not be very desirable. The
tradeoff seems to be mass vs. good insulation properties.
On the 21st of November, with another winter storm threatening, all blocks were moved
and stacked on a concrete pad under a small covered overhang. Blowing rain could still
reach them but a falling rain would not. This was deemed necessary because of the
frequent rains had slowed the drying time of all the samples. The newspaper and mixed
paper blocks were handled for the first time. They held together but were still very wet.
It is now the 11th of December. All samples are dry externally and quite strong - with the
exception of the sample made with rice hull ash. It is still soft to the touch. Either rice
hull ash simply doesn't work as a pozzolan or the amount of Portland cement mixed with
the rice hull ash wasn't sufficient. If time permits, we will try making additional samples
with a greater percentage of Portland cement. Update 4/10/05 - This almost certainly
occurred because of lack of Portland. All tests seem to indicate that most of the strength
tracks Portland content. However, fiber type and sand content have a role as well.
Samples 11-13, Rice Hull Ash and 28,29, Paper Without Binder were not submitted to
Arizona State for testing in order to conserve testing resources. As stated above, the Rice
Hull Ash did not appear to work very well and samples 28,29 were considered to be
unnecessary since any form of paper block will have to contain binder. So 24 samples
were submitted to ASU on February 4th for testing.
Samples 38, 39 Noticed that light hand compression and addition of more material within
20-30 minutes after pour, results in much less honeycombing and shrinkage. Samples
were somewhat more difficult to remove from forms, but remained nearly 100 percent
square in curing.
Sample 60 Cardboard shrank slightly more and retained water for much longer than
newsprint and kept the light brown color. However, upon drying, the material seemed to
exhibit much more strength. Clyde Curry reports adding 10 percent cardboard to
newsprint results in greater strength. It appears that adding longer fibers to the mix adds
strength.
Section II. Laboratory Testing

1. Scope
The scope of this project is mainly focused on the compressive properties of Papercrete, a
new material made of waste paper, cement, and water. In addition to the compressive
properties, a limited number of preliminary tests are performed. The objective of these
tests is to gain some insight on other properties such as creep, pull and thermal.
2. Objectives
2.1 Determine a working Youngs modulus (E) of the different samples in order to
choose the ideal mixture that has the higher stiffness and lower deformation.
2.2 Study the deformation (creep) behavior of the selected samples under the
application of constant load applied for a long period of time.
2.3 Determine some thermal properties such as thermal conductivity (K), and thermal
resistance (R).
2.4 Determine the bond characteristics of the material by doing pull-out test.
3. Compressive Test
3.1 Experimental Setup
In theses tests an increasing uniaxial compressive load was applied at constant speed,
uniformly distributed in order to develop the stress vs strain curve and determine
determine the stiffness of the material. The following testing procedure was used for the
compression test:
Since some samples had irregular faces, they were made flat by using normal
commercial mortar (Figure 1). In this way, the applied load is distributed
uniformly.
10
Figure 1.- Papercrete sample with mortar on one face
The mortar was allowed to cure for seven days. The samples were tested
under uniaxial compressive force using a 100ton-compression machine
(Figure 2). The loading rate at the displacement control mode was 0.35 in/min,
and all samples were loaded up to approximately 10 kips, unloaded, and
reloaded to approximately 15 kips.
Two aluminum plates were used to distribute uniformly the load given by the
machine to the sample.
Figure 2.- Compression test
10
11
Failure was defined by deformation criteria rather than load because the
compressive force magnitude does not drop. The material is not brittle, and it
does not exhibit descending branch in the stress-strain curve.
It was found that at 15 kips the deformation was excessive, rendering the
material useless.
3.2 Results
The data collected from the compression tests ware used to develop two graphs for each
sample. The first graph is Load vs Deformation, and the second one is Stress vs Strain.
The stiffness or elastic modulus of the material (E) is the slope of the Stress vs Strain
graph. A trend line was applied using Microsoft Excel in order to get the right value of
the slope of the curve (Figure 3). Note that the material is non-linear, and as a result there
is no Elastic (Youngs) Modulus. A working Youngs Modulus is an approximate value
obtained from the stress-strain curves, and which can be used as an index to characterize
the compressive behavior up to some stress. In practice, the allowable compressive stress
is expected to be at about this level. The softer part of the curve (Figure 3), is probably
due to irregularities of the surfaces of the specimens.
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No2
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=560 psi
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
E=1200 psi
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Strain - %
Figure 3.- Stress vs Strain graph
11
12
A first group of twenty three samples of different mix proportions of recycled paper and
cement were tested under uniaxial compressive force on March 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and the
results are tabulated in Table 1:
Table 1 : Papercrete Samples (1st group)
Summary results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Sample
Sample1
Sample2
Sample3
Sample4
Sample5
Sample6
Sample7
Sample8
Sample9
Sample13
Sample14
Sample15
Sample16
Sample1718
Sample19
Sample20
Sample21
Sample22
Sample23
Sample24
Sample25
Sample26
Sample27
Material
Paper/Portland
Paper/Portland
Paper/Portland
Paper/Portland/Sand
Paper/Portland/Sand
Paper/Portland/Sand
Sludge/Port./Fly
Sludge/Port./Fly
Paper/Clay
Paper/Portland/Clay
Paper/Portland/Clay
Paper/Portland/Lime
Paper/Portland/Lime
Paper/Portland/Lime
Proportions
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-1-5gal
1-1-10gal
1-1-15gal
1-.7-.25
1-.6-.30
1-.5-.35
15% Sty
20% Sty
25% Sty
1-.7-.25
1-.6-.3
1-1-5gal
1-1-10gal
1-1-15gal
0%Port
1 bag mix
2 bag mix
1-.5-.5
1-1-1
1-1.5-1.5
Elastic Modulus
1
600 psi
1200 psi
2000 psi
800 psi
700 psi
590 psi
950 psi
420 psi
400 psi
1200 psi
1430 psi
860 psi
1390 psi
2700 psi
470 psi
570 psi
700 psi
1394 psi
855 psi
1375 psi
400 psi
570 psi
660 psi
Elastic Modulus
2
200 psi
560 psi
860 psi
285 psi
330 psi
280 psi
260 psi
190 psi
200 psi
700 psi
490 psi
490 psi
200 psi
250 psi
230 psi
620 psi
390 psi
670 psi
170 psi
230 psi
250 psi
A second group of six samples was tested on April 5, 3rd and the results are tabulated in
Table 2:
Table 2: Papercrete Samples (2nd group)
Summary results
Sample
24
Sample30
25
Sample33
Material
1/8 inch grind

3/8 inch grind
Proportions
1:2
1:2
Elastic Modulus
1
Elastic Modulus
2
1550 psi
2000 psi
12
13
Sample35
5/8 inch grind
1:2
1200 psi
27
28
Sample36
Sample37
Clyde T. Curry: Poured

2/13/05
Zach Rabon:Poured on 2/5/05
Per yard
Per yard
1250 psi
3000 psi
100 psi
800 psi
29
Sample60
Cardboard Pour 3/17/05
.7 yard
220 psi
26
A third group of five samples was tested on May 17th, and the results are tabulated in
Table 3:
Table 3: Papercrete Samples

Sample
30
Sample38
31
Sample39
32
Sample40
33
34
Sample41
Sample42
Material
Summary results
Elastic Modulus
Proportions
1
SRP Printing paper
Mixed waste paper
200 gal
200 gal
0.7
1/2 batch
0.7
Elastic Modulus
2
1200 psi
100 psi
900 psi
120 psi
1500 psi
270 psi
1300 psi
2100 psi
220 psi
All the Load vs Deformation and Stress vs Strain graphs as well as the sample detailed
descriptions may be found in Appendix I.
3.3 Conclusions
When the samples were capped, all of them absorbed a lot of water very quickly.
However, no apparent change in the samples after the seven day curing period
was observed.
During the compression test, the stress-strain curve is monotonically increasing

and the sample starts packing rather than disintegrating. For that reason,
deformation is the criterion for failure.
The Stress vs Strain graphs suggest that, papercrete is a ductile material that can
sustain large deformations (Figure 5).
13
14
Figure 5.- Papercrete sample after testing
Cement plays an important role in the compressive strength and behavior.

Specimens with higher proportion of cement exhibit larger Youngs Modulus.
As pointed out, the stress-strain curves exhibit a softer segment at the beginning
(Figure 3). This is probably because of the inherent irregularities of the specimens
due to shrinkage.
It is believed that, in practice (for example in the construction of a wall), the selfweight of the structure will apply a moderate pressure which will bring the stress
at the level of the working Youngs Modulus which will be used in design.
4. Pull Out Test

This test is used to measure the bond capacity of a material by applying an increasing
force to extract a corrugated steel bar that was previously driven. The following testing
procedure was used for the Pull Out Test:
The pull-out samples were prepared by driving a corrugated steel bar in the
middle of a block of Papercrete. Two different kinds of samples were tested. The
single one has one block, and the second one has two blocks. Cement was used to
join blocks, and, in some samples, some cement was put to fill the empty spaces
between the steel bar and the block (Figure 6).
14
15
Figure 6.- Pull Out sample with two blocks.
The sample is subjected to an increasing load in order to pull out the steel bar by
using a 100ton-compression machine (Figure 7). The loading rate at the
displacement control mode was 0.35 in/min, and a steel cap was used to apply the
load on the bar to avoid it moves during the test.
Figure 7.- Pull Out Test (double block)
In the same way as the compression test, failure was defined by deformation
criteria rather than load because the pulling force magnitude does not drop
immediately. After reaching the pulling force its maximum value, it starts
15
16
decreasing slowly due to the friction between the steel bar and papercrete. Since
the steel bar is a corrugated one, the force does not decrease immediately due to
the bar wrinkles or folds.
4.2 Results
The data collected from the pull-out test were used to develop a Load vs Deformation
graph for each sample. From this graph, we can obtain the maximum load (Pmax) that
the sample can sustain before the corrugated steel bar and the papercrete block start
sliding between each other (Figure 8).
PULL OUT
Load vs Deformation
Sample No3 (double block)
700
650
600
550
500
Load - lb
450
400
350
Pmax = 285.3 lb
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
Deformation - in
Figure 8.- Load vs Deformation

Five samples were tested on May 17th, and the results are tabulated in Table 4:
Pull out test

Summary results
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Type
Sample1
Sample2
Sample3
Sample4
Sample5
single
single
double
double
double
Pmax (lbs)
60.4
47.0
285.3
130.1
694.0
16
17
All the Load vs Deformation graphs as well as the sample detailed descriptions may be
found in Appendix II.
4.3 Conclusions
During the pull out test, the load-deformation curve is monotonically increasing in
a non-linear way until it reaches its maximum. Then it starts decreasing slowly
due to the bar wrinkles or folds which prevent the opposite force (friction force)
from decreasing drastically.
All load-deformation curves exhibit a large number of peaks along them. This is
because the material (papercrete) is broken and packed as the corrugated steel bar
is driven by the pulling force. When the material is broken, the pulling load drops,
and when the material starts packing, the load increases. This occurs hundreds of
times during the entire tests.
From the results numbers, it is noted that the results vary considerably from one
to another. Since the corrugated steel bar was driven into the papercrete blocks by
hammering, some factors such as perpendicularity, and packing produced by bar
wrinkles or folds can make pull out results vary.
In addition, Pmax does not vary proportionally. For example, if Pmax=40lb for a
single block sample, Pmax will not be 2 times 40 for a double block sample. It
will be larger. This can be due to several factors such as perpendicularity of the
steel bar, state of papercrete packing after driving the steel bar, and the cement
used to join blocks.
5. Creep Test
This test is used to see how a material behaves when it is subjected to a constant
compressive load for a long period of time. The following testing procedure was used for
the Creep Test:
All creep samples were made by cutting papercrete blocks of approximately 3 in x

3 in x 9 in (Figure 9).
17
18
Figure 9.- Creep samples
It was designed a special apparatus with a gage that allows us to measure vertical
deformations with a sensitivity of 1/1000 of an inch. A steel bar is used to
transmit and amplify a load of 60lb to a wood rod which transmits the load to the
sample through two small wood plates (Figure 10).
Figure 10.- Creep Test
Each sample is subjected to a constant load of approximately 300 lb for a

relatively long period of time (approximately 2 weeks) until the increment of
deformation from one day with respect to another is almost zero.
18
19
5.2 Results
The data collected from the creep test were used to develop a Deformation vs Time graph
for each sample. From this graph, we can see the deformation (creep) behavior under a
constant load (Figure 11). At the beginning, the material is non-linear, but, as time goes
by, the curve starts getting asymptotic. To smoothen the curve, a trend line was applied
using Microsoft Excel.
PAPERCRETE
Deformation vs Time
Sample No4
0.1000
Dimensions:
a=3.0in
b=3.0in
t=8.75in
Deformation - in
0.0800
Trendline
0.0600
0.0400
0.0200
0.0000
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time - Days
Figure 11.- Deformation-Time curve
A group of six samples will be tested, and all results will be reported as soon the tests are
over. So far, just one sample has been tested, and the Deformation vs Time graph as well
as a table showing deformation, and strain may be found in Appendix III.
Appendix I
19
20
Compressive Test
1st Group of Samples
20
21
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No1
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.8in
b=11.0in
t=4.3in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No1
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=200 psi
50.00
E=600 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Strain - %
21
22
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No2
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=10.8in
b=12.0in
t=4.5in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No2
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=560 psi
100.00
50.00
E=1200 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
22
23
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No3
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=10.8in
b=12.0in
t=4.7in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No3
300.00
250.00
Stress - psi
E=860 psi
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
E=2000
i
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
23
24
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No4
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.0in
b=12.0in
t=4.25in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No4
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=285 psi
50.00
E=800 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Strain - %
24
25
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No5
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.8in
b=10.2in
t=4.3in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No5
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=330 psi
100.00
50.00
E=700 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Strain - %
25
26
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No6
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=12.2in
b=10.4in
t=4.3in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No6
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=280 psi
50.00
E=590 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Strain - %
26
27
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No7
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.8in
b=10.4in
t=4.5in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No7
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=260 psi
50.00
E=950 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Strain - %
27
28
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No8
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
E=190 psi
E=420 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Strain - %
28
29
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No9
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.8in
b=10.2in
t=3.9in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No9
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=200 psi
50.00
E=400 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Strain - %
29
30
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No13
45000
40000
Dimensions:
a=10.6in
b=11.8in
t=4.3in
35000
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No13
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
E=700 psi
150.00
100.00
50.00
E=1200 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
30
31
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No14
45000
40000
Dimensions:
a=11.6in
b=10.8in
t=4.7in
35000
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No14
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
E=490 psi
150.00
100.00
E=1430 psi
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
31
32
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No15
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.0in
b=12.0in
t=4.7in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No15
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=490 psi
100.00
E=860 psi
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
32
33
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No16
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.4in
b=12.4in
t=5.1in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No16
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=1390 psi
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
33
34
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No17,18
45000
40000
Dimensions:
a=12.0in
b=11.0in
t=6.3in
35000
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No17,18
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=2700 psi
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
34
35
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No19
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.8in
b=10.8in
t=4.5in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No19
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=200 psi
50.00
E=470 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Strain - %
35
36
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No20
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.0in
b=11.8in
t=4.7in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No20
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=250 psi
50.00
E=570 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
36
37
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No21
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.8in
b=11.0in
t=4.9in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No21
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=230 psi
50.00
E=700 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
37
38
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No22
45000
40000
Dimensions:
a=9.5in
b=11.0in
t=4.5in
35000
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No22
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
E=620 psi
150.00
100.00
E=1394 psi
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
38
39
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No23
45000
40000
Dimensions:
a=12.0in
b=11.5in
t=5.0in
35000
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No23
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=390 psi
50.00
E=855 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
39
40
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No24
45000
40000
Dimensions:
a=12.5in
b=11.5in
t=5.0in
35000
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No24
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=670 psi
100.00
E=1375 psi
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
40
41
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No25
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.4in
b=10.6in
t=4.3in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No25
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
E=170 psi
E=400 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
41
42
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No26
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=11.2in
b=12.0in
t=4.7in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No26
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=230 psi
50.00
E=570 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
42
43
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No27
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=12.2in
b=11.4in
t=4.7in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No27
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
E=250 psi
50.00
0.00
0.00
E=660 psi
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
43
44
2nd Group of Samples
44
45
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No30
10000
Load - lb
Dimensions:
a=3.4in
b=3.4in
t=3.4in
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No30
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
E=1550 psi
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
45
46
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No33
10000
Load - lb
Dimensions:
a=3.6in
b=3.6in
t=3.6in
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No33
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
E=2000 psi
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
46
47
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No35
10000
Load - lb
Dimensions:
a=3.5in
b=3.5in
t=3.5in
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No35
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
E=1200 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Strain - %
47
48
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No36
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=5.5in
b=8.2in
t=9.4in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No36
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
E=100 psi
E=1250 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
48
49
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No37
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=5.0in
b=11.7in
t=12.0in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No37
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=800 psi
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
E=3000 psi
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
49
50
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No60
45000
40000
35000
Dimensions:
a=4.5in
b=10.5in
t=11.7in
Load - lb
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No60
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
E=220 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
50
51
3rd Group of Samples
51
52
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No38
10000
Load - lb
Dimensions:
a=3.6in
b=3.5in
t=3.7in
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No38
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
E=100 psi
E=1200 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
52
53
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No39
10000
Load - lb
Dimensions:
a=3.6in
b=3.5in
t=3.6in
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No39
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
E=120 psi
E=900 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
53
54
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No40
10000
Load - lb
Dimensions:
a=3.25in
b=3.25in
t=3.0in
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No40
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=270 psi
100.00
50.00
E=1500 psi
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
54
55
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No41
10000
Load - lb
Dimensions:
a=3.4in
b=3.4in
t=3.0in
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No41
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
E=1300 psi
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
55
56
PAPERCRETE
Load vs Deformation
Sample No42
10000
Load - lb
Dimensions:
a=3.3in
b=3.4in
t=2.75in
5000
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
0.30
0.40
0.50
Deformation - in
PAPERCRETE
Stress vs Strain
Sample No42
300.00
Stress - psi
250.00
200.00
150.00
E=220 psi
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
E=2100 psi
0.10
0.20
Strain - %
56
57
Appendix II
Pull Out Test
57
58
PULL OUT
Load vs Deformation
Sample No1 (single block)
700
650
600
550
500
Load - lb
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
Pmax = 60.4 lb
50
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
Deformation - in
PULL OUT
Load vs Deformation
Sample No2 (single block)
700
650
600
550
500
Load - lb
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
Pmax = 47 lb
50
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
Deformation - in
58
59
PULL OUT
Load vs Deformation
700
650
600
550
500
Load - lb
450
400
350
Pmax = 285.3 lb
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
Deformation - in
PULL OUT
Load vs Deformation
700
650
600
550
500
Load - lb
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
Pmax = 130.1 lb
100
50
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
Deformation - in
59
60
PULL OUT
Load vs Deformation
700
650
Pmax = 694 lb
600
550
500
Load - lb
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
0.40
0.80
Deformation - in
60
61
Appendix III
Creep Test
61
62
MATERIAL:
SAMPLE :
Area
26.25
(in):
Load
307.5
(lb)=
Time
Days
0
2
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
19
Deform.
Read
(in)
0.000
0.170
0.310
0.337
0.367
0.410
0.400
0.465
0.465
0.465
0.482
0.500
0.516
(Constant)
Actual
Strain
Stress
Deform. (in)
0.0000
0.0255
0.0465
0.0506
0.0551
0.0615
0.0600
0.0698
0.0698
0.0698
0.0723
0.0750
0.0774
in/in
0.000
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.009
psi
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
PAPERCRETE
Deformation vs Time
Sample No4
0.1000
Dimensions:
a=3.0in
b=3.0in
t=8.75in
0.0800
Deformation - in
Papercrete
No4
Trendline
0.0600
0.0400
0.0200
0.0000
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time - Days
62

Research Report PSI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Report PSI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Disclaimer Of Liability And Warranty

Section I. Preparation of Mixes For Compressive Strength Tests &

9.4 lb Portland, .5 gal sand

4k 265g, 7lb 9.7oz , 3k 450g

7 lb Portland, 2.4 lb Fly Ash

Paper/Port./Rice Hull Ash

6.6 lb Portland, 2.8 lb Rice Ash

9k 800g, 5.7oz, 140g

7 lb Portland, 2.4 lb Fly Ash

9.4 lb Portland, .5 gal Glass

4k 265g, (crushed glass-damp4k 265g, no accurate weight)

10.5g pulp, 4.5 gal clay

4.7lb Portland, 4.7 lb Lime

1 gal Sand 13lb 12.3oz

Newspaper pulp alone***

15 gallons of newspaper pulp

All 1:2 Paper: Portland -10 cups

Cardboard Pour 3/17/05

105 lbs of hammer milled

1 bag Portland, 30 lbs fly ash

Observations Before Testing

WEATHER (Tests 1-29)

Section II. Laboratory Testing

Figure 1.- Papercrete sample with mortar on one face

Figure 2.- Compression test

Figure 3.- Stress vs Strain graph

1/8 inch grind

5/8 inch grind

Clyde T. Curry: Poured

Cardboard Pour 3/17/05

Table 3: Papercrete Samples

During the compression test, the stress-strain curve is monotonically increasing

Figure 5.- Papercrete sample after testing

Cement plays an important role in the compressive strength and behavior.

4. Pull Out Test

Figure 6.- Pull Out sample with two blocks.

Figure 7.- Pull Out Test (double block)

Figure 8.- Load vs Deformation

Pull out test

All creep samples were made by cutting papercrete blocks of approximately 3 in x

Figure 9.- Creep samples

Figure 10.- Creep Test

Each sample is subjected to a constant load of approximately 300 lb for a

Figure 11.- Deformation-Time curve

1st Group of Samples

2nd Group of Samples

3rd Group of Samples

Pull Out Test

You might also like